Freedom to mate at will may be fully allowed and even enjoined and provided for by such institutions as the mixed houses for bachelors and girls (Trobriand Islanders, Nandi, Masai. Bontoc Igorot). In some communities prenuptial intercourse is not meant to lead to marriage, and there are even cases (as among the Masai, Bhuiya and Kumbi of India, Guaycuru and Guana of Brazil), where two prenuptial lovers are not supposed to marry. Elsewhere prenuptial mating is a method of courtship by trial and error, and it leads gradually into stable unions, and is finally transformed into marriage. Thus among the Trobriand Islanders "sexual freedom" is considerable. It begins very early, children already taking a great deal of interest in certain pursuits and amusements which come as near sexuality as their unripe age allows. This is by no means regarded as improper or immoral, is known and tolerated by the elders and abetted by games and customary arrangements. Later on, after boys and girls have reached sexual maturity, their freedom remains the same, with the result that there is a great deal of indiscriminate mating. In fact, at this age both sexes show a great deal of experimental interest, a tendency to vary and to try, and here again a number of ar rangements and customs play into the hands of these juvenile lovers. As time goes on, however, and the boys and girls grow older, their intrigues naturally and without any outer pressure, extend in length and depth, the ties between lovers become stronger and more permanent. One decided preference as a rule develops and stands out against the lesser love affairs. It is im portant to note that such preferences are clearly based on genuine attachment resulting from real affinity of character. The pro tracted intrigue becomes a matter of public notice as well as a test of mutual compatibility, the girl's family signify their con sent and marriage is finally concluded between the two lovers. (Malinowski). Similar forms of prenuptial selection are found in other tribes (Igorot of Luzon, Akamba of E. Africa, Munshi of N. Nigeria).
In no instance, however, is prenuptial liberty regarded by the natives as a negation or substitute for marriage. In fact it always is in such communities in the nature of a preliminary or prepara tion to marriage; it allows the young people to sow their wild oats, it eliminates the cruder forms of sex impulse from matri monial selection and it often leads youths and girls to exercise a mature choice based on attraction of personality rather than on sexual appeal.
4. The Principle of Legitimacy.—Perhaps the most impor tant fact in the consideration of prenuptial unchastity is the rule that freedom of sexual intercourse does not generally extend to freedom of procreation. One of the symptoms of this is that in all communities where chastity is demanded and enforced, the lapse from it entails more censure on girls than on boys, while prenuptial pregnancy is penalised much more severely than mere wantonness. But even where prenuptial unchastity becomes an institution not merely condoned but enjoined by tribal law, preg nancy is often regarded as a disgrace.
Among the aristocratic fraternities of Polynesia, the areoi of Tahiti and the ulitao of the Marquesas, licence between the men and the women was universal, but children of such unions were killed, unless adopted by a married couple. Among the Melanesian communities of New Guinea and the adjacent archipelago which allow of full sex liberty before marriage the occurrence of preg nancy under such circumstances is a grave disgrace to the mother and entails disabilities on the child. The Masai punish a girl for prenuptial pregnancy, although with them the free unions of un married boys and girls are an institution. A similar combination
of prenuptial full licence with severe punishment of illegitimate childbirth is recorded from several African tribes (Wapore, Bakoki, Banyankole, Basoga, Akikuyu, Nandi, Beni Amer), from America (Indians of Brit. Guiana, Guaycuru and Guana of Brazil, Creeks and Cherokees), from Asia (Lisu of Burma, Nias Islanders of Malay Archipelago), from Melanesia (Mekeo and N. Solomon Islanders) and from Siberia (Aleut). In all such cases pregnancy is no doubt prevented by contraceptive practices, which however have been reported from very few savage tribes by trustworthy informants ; or by abortion, which is far more frequent ; or expiated by a punishment of the mother, and some times also of the father.
The main sociological principle embodied in these rules and arrangements is that children should not be produced outside a socially approved contract of marriage. In several tribes, the remedy for the disgrace of a prenuptial child consists therefore in an obligation of the presumptive father to marry the girl (S.E. Bantu, Madi, Bavuma, Kagoro of Africa; Tepehuane and Hupa of America; Kacharis, Rabhas, Hajongs and Billavas of India and Assam; Kayans and Punans of Borneo). In some cases again a child of a free union is desired and expected to come, indeed it is a condition to marriage, which is concluded upon its arrival (Sea Dyak, Hill Dyak, Iruleas, Moi, Bontoc Igorot of Asia; natives of Bismarck Archipelago; Lengua, Guarayos and Pueblo Indians of America; Wolofs and Bambata of Africa). Such cases, although they are in a way the opposite of those in which a prenuptial child is a disgrace, involve the same principle: the provision of a father for the child, that is the elimination of illegitimate offspring. As a matter of fact, in all instances where a prenuptial pregnancy is welcomed, the reason for it is that children are regarded in that community as an advantage. The father con sequently need not be forced to marry the mother, he does so of his own accord because fruitful marriage is desirable. Thus in all human societies a father is regarded as indispensable for each child, i.e., a husband for each mother. An illegitimate child— a child born out of wedlock—is an anomaly, whether it be an outcast or an unclaimed asset. A group consisting of a woman and her children is a legally incomplete unit. Marriage thus appears to be an indispensable element in the institution of the family. (See Malinowski, Sex and Repression, pp. 212-21 7.) 5. Relaxations of the Marriage Bond.—Among tribes where chastity is demanded from unmarried girls and youths, marital fidelity is also usually enjoined. As a rule adultery is regarded as a grave offence and more severely penalised than prenuptial incontinence, though exceptions to this rule do exist. In many communities where freedom is granted before marriage, once the matrimonial knot is tied both partners or the wife at least are bound to remain faithful, under more or less serious penalties (Trobrianders, Mailu, Nukuhiva, Maori of Oceania; Land and Sea Dayaks, Kukis, Hajongs, Saorias, Ceramese of Indonesia; Botocudos and Guarayos of S. America : Illinois, Comanche, Iro quois, Pawnee, Californian Indians of N. America; Timne, Ashanti, Konde, Zulu, Kafirs and Thonga of Africa). The penalty inflicted upon an adulterous wife is invariably much graver than upon an unfaithful husband, and considerable differences obtain according to the circumstances of the offence, the status of the third party, the husband's anger and his attachment to his wife.